ESPN had just done its seemingly annual "which is more NCAA worthy: Mids or Middling Majors?" debate, forwarding the same points and generating the same conclusions as it always has. Mid-Majors are cute and cuddly but just can't compete with the meaty resumes of even the most mediocre of BCS level squads. Meanwhile, the defenders of the little guys point out how they seem to outperform their seed expectation pretty routinely, suggesting that they're characteristically under-slotted in the tournament field and fail to garner the respect they truly deserve.
After bemoaning the contrived nature of the ESPN debate (don't get me wrong, it's hard to write anything novel on the subject), Andy Glockner - Bubble Watch guru for SI.com and that site's resident Bracketologist - picked up the baton and added the important point that BCS schools had better rack up a handful of quality wins, because they get so many chances to do so.
It's almost as if the Middling Majors are given every opportunity to fall hind-parts backwards into marquee victories. In response to Glockner, I mused that the Middling Majors' resumes should be compared against what a generic bubble team could have done with the same schedule.
Then, John Ezekowitz of the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective asked the logical follow up question. If only we could give the Mid Major bubble teams a Middling Major schedule, we could see what kind of profiles they could generate and then compare them against the resume that specific Middling Major actually compiled.
Through the beauty of the Pomeroy Ratings, some mathematical gymnastics and moderate modeling, bubble Mids can be run through the schedules of bubble Majors (in Part II of this analysis, the script will be flipped with Majors playing the Mids' schedules). For the sake of this analysis, the selected bubble Mids are UAB, Butler, Colorado St., Duquesne, Missouri St. and UTEP. The bubble Majors are Alabama, Baylor, Boston College, Georgia, Kansas St., Marquette, Michigan St, Oklahoma St. and Virginia Tech.
Each of the six Mid-Majors was run through each BCS team's schedule 1,000 times to generate the expected profile for the Mid-Major if it had played each of those Middling Majors' schedules.
HYPOTHETICAL BIG BOYS
The first BCS bubble team to undergo examination will be Alabama, and it will also be the example team for which the entire analysis will be provided.
The Crimson Tide staggered through a miserable non-conference stretch, during which it went 1-6 against Pomeroy's Top 200 (only W at home versus No. 155 Lipscomb). Alabama caught fire during league play and has the following expected resume:
| Alabama | W | L |
| Overall Record | 20 | 10 |
| Conference Record | 12 | 4 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 2 | 0 |
| RPI Top 100 | 2 | 3 |
| RPI 101-200 | 5 | 4 |
| RPI 200+ | 10 | 0 |
The 5-4 record versus the RPI Top 101-200 is a bit unsightly, but the 3-3 mark against the Top 50 and the 5-6 mark against the Top 100 are decent marks. In this exercise, however, everything is relative - so the expected results of the bubble Mids are what really matters. (NOTE: All figures are averages of 1,000 simulations and thus the RPI breakdown might not sum to the Overall Record due to rounding).
| Alabama | ||
| UAB | W | L |
| Overall Record | 21 | 9 |
| Conference Record | 10 | 6 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 10 | - |
| Alabama | ||
| Butler | W | L |
| Overall Record | 20 | 10 |
| Conference Record | 9 | 7 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 6 | 3 |
| RPI 200+ | 9 | 1 |
| Alabama | ||
| Duquesne | W | L |
| Overall Record | 23 | 7 |
| Conference Record | 11 | 5 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 4 | 1 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 10 | - |
| Alabama | ||
| Colorado St. | W | L |
| Overall Record | 20 | 10 |
| Conference Record | 10 | 6 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 6 | 3 |
| RPI 200+ | 10 | - |
| Alabama | ||
| Texas El Paso | W | L |
| Overall Record | 21 | 9 |
| Conference Record | 10 | 6 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 10 | - |
| Alabama | ||
| Missouri St. | W | L |
| Overall Record | 19 | 11 |
| Conference Record | 9 | 7 |
| RPI Top 25 | - | 4 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 1 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 6 | 3 |
| RPI 200+ | 9 | 1 |
The first thing to hop off the page is that only Missouri State failed to match the Crimson Tide's 20-10 expected mark. In fact, UAB, Duquesne and UTEP eclipse Alabama's overall mark, though there was one profile advantage that clearly leaned toward the Crimson Tide - none of the six Mids could match Alabama's three Top 50 wins. Five of the six managed to match the Crimson Tide's 5-6 mark against the Top 100, however, and Duquesne even posted a winning 6-5 record.
At the same time, none of the six Mids performed worse than Alabama's 15-4 record against teams outside the Top 100 and four of the six beat the Crimson Tide in that category.
No Bracketology-style attempts to rank these teams on a relative S-Curve will take place here, except to say
that five of the six Mids appear to have put together profiles with Alabama's schedule which would be incredibly competitive with what the Crimson Tide achieved itself.
BOSTON COLLEGE
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 18 | 12 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 8 |
| RPI Top 25 | 0 | 4 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 2 |
| RPI Top 100 | 7 | 4 |
| RPI 101-200 | 6 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 4 | 0 |
The Eagles are a very interesting case study. Boston College's overall record is better than four of the six Mids, tied with UAB and behind Duquesne (20-10).
Every Mid was able to match the Eagles' 1-6 record against the top 50, while three (UAB, Butler and Duquesne) surpassed Boston College's mark as all three went 3-4 against those same teams. Where the Eagles make up the most ground is in their 7-4 record against teams 51-100. Only Duquesne had an above .500 record in those games (6-5), while the other five hovered between 4-7 and 5-6. Looking at the Top 100 records as a whole, the Eagles' 8-10 mark ties for second with UAB and Butler behind Duquesne's 9-9 mark, but finishes well ahead of UTEP and Colorado St.'s 6-12 record and Missouri State's 5-13.
In this case, Duquesne did more with Boston College's schedule than the Eagles have, while UAB and Butler would be very close, depending on whether you value Boston College's impressive 51-100 record or UAB and Butler's greater number of Top 50 wins.
VIRGINIA TECH
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 20 | 9 |
| Conference Record | 10 | 6 |
| RPI Top 25 | 0 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 2 | 3 |
| RPI Top 100 | 7 | 1 |
| RPI 101-200 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 8 | 0 |
Sticking in the ACC, let's take a look at perennial Bubble resident Virginia Tech.
The Hokies are much like, but a little better off than, conference-mate Boston College. Duquesne ties Virginia Tech at 20-9, but all the other Mids are at least two games behind. Much like the Eagles, however, the Top 50 record is unimpressive, as three of the Mids tied the 2-6 mark and three (UAB and Butler at 3-5, Duquesne at 4-4) topped the Hokies, but the 7-1 record against 51-100 teams is two to four games better than every Mid.
Also, every Mid matched (and three Mids - Duquesne, UAB, UTEP - surpassed) Virginia Tech's pedestrian 3-2 mark against RPI 101-200 teams.
As in the case of the Eagles, the 51-100 record is very impressive, but the Hokies fall short in the Top 50 wins department. It would be very interesting to see how the committee would rule on that debate.
BAYLOR
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 19 | 11 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 8 |
| RPI Top 25 | 0 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 2 | 3 |
| RPI Top 100 | 4 | 3 |
| RPI 101-200 | 6 | 2 |
| RPI 200+ | 6 | 0 |
The Bears, like the Crimson Tide, fail to distance themselves from the Mid field in any distinctive way, but also don't lag behind either. Usually, this is indicative of an unbalanced schedule with a relative dearth of 50/50 games, where slight differences in team quality would manifest themselves more strongly.
In overall record, Baylor lags behind Duquesne (22-8), UAB and UTEP (20-10), while finishing even with Colorado St. and Butler. The Bears' 6-9 mark against the RPI Top 100 is better than UTEP, Colorado St. and Missouri St. (all 5-10), tied with UAB and behind Butler (7-9) and Duquesne (8-8). The rest of the profile is pretty even with the rest of the Mids, likely for the scheduling reason addressed above.
Take away the names and it would be hard to definitively put Baylor in the field over any team but Missouri State, much like Alabama. Duquesne and Butler amassed pretty convincingly superior NCAA profiles.
OKLAHOMA STATE
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 18 | 12 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 8 |
| RPI Top 25 | 0 | 3 |
| RPI Top 50 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI Top 100 | 2 | 6 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 1 |
| RPI 200+ | 6 | 0 |
Joining fellow Big 12 member Baylor, the Cowboys hardly appear superior to any of the Mids other than Missouri State.
None of the Mids fared any better against the Top 25, but three (UAB, Duquesne and UTEP) matched Oklahoma St.'s 3-2 mark against RPIs 26-50. Everyone except Missouri State did better than the Cowboys against RPIs 51-100 - all at 3-5 except for the Dukes' 4-4.
The Cowboys' 7-1 mark against RPIs 101-200 was better than all of the Mids (except the Dukes, also at 7-1) and was quite impressive given that three of those eight games were on the road and one was neutral.
At the end of the day, half the Mids matched Oklahoma St.'s Top 50 record and five of six topped the Cowboys' 51-100 mark, suggesting that at least a few of the Mids would have compiled better profiles with Oklahoma St.'s schedule.
KANSAS STATE
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 20 | 11 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 8 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 4 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 100 | 6 | 4 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 0 |
| RPI 200+ | 4 | 0 |
The final Big 12 bubble team seemingly has the strongest case. Kansas St.'s 20-11 expected mark is only matched by Duquesne, while every other team falls at least two games short.
The 2-7 record versus the RPI Top 50 may look weak, but only the Dukes did better (3-6), while three teams (Colorado St., UTEP and Missouri State) failed to match it, going 1-8. Only Duquesne could match the Wildcats' 6-4 RPI 51-100 mark, and looking at the Top 100 as a whole, Kansas St.'s 8-11 record finishes alone in second behind the Dukes' 9-10.
Also important in terms of NCAA selection, none of the Mids managed a perfect run through Kansas St.'s RPI 101+ opponents. Of the five Middling Majors examined thus far, the Wildcats are the first that appear to be a level above most of the Bubble Mids.
GEORGIA
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 19 | 11 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 8 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 7 |
| RPI Top 50 | 1 | 3 |
| RPI Top 100 | 2 | 1 |
| RPI 101-200 | 7 | 0 |
| RPI 200+ | 8 | 0 |
The Bulldogs' avoidance of RPI 101+ losses was one thing that our sample of Mids couldn't avoid (only the Dukes limited the damage to one, while the other five dropped two or three).
Georgia's Quality Win resume leaves a lot to be desired, however. Every Mid, across the board, went either 2-6 or 3-5 versus the RPI Top 25 and all six went 2-2 against the RPI Top 50. That means that every Mid in our sample was 4-8 or 5-7 versus the Bulldogs' 2-10. That's a huge gap.
Most of the Mids went 1-2 versus the RPI 51-100 opponents and, as mentioned above, fared much worse against the non-Top 100 competition. Given the stark contrast in the expected Top 50 records, however, it's hard to say that Georgia deserves consideration ahead of any of the Mids.
MARQUETTE
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 18 | 13 |
| Conference Record | 9 | 9 |
| RPI Top 25 | 3 | 11 |
| RPI Top 50 | 0 | 0 |
| RPI Top 100 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI 101-200 | 5 | 0 |
| RPI 200+ | 7 | 0 |
First - merely to point out a bizarre oddity - Marquette has managed to play 19 Top 100 games without having one come against a team ranked 26-50 at the time when the RPI was pulled for this study.
Back to the task at hand, however, Marquette sits alone in second among our Mids, one game behind Duquesne. Three of the Mids posted better Top 25 records (UAB and Butler at 4-10, Duquesne at 5-9) while two tied (Colorado St. and UTEP) and one fell a game short (Missouri State). Every team but Missouri State went 3-2 against the RPI 51-100 competition in Marquette's schedule.
Marquette's 12-0 record against RPI 101+ opponents could not be matched, however, as Duquesne went 11-1 while the other five Mids went 10-2. The Golden Eagles might not get in ahead of the Dukes, but would be a solid second choice.
MICHIGAN STATE
Expected Profile:
| W | L | |
| Overall Record | 16 | 14 |
| Conference Record | 8 | 10 |
| RPI Top 25 | 1 | 8 |
| RPI Top 50 | 3 | 2 |
| RPI Top 100 | 4 | 3 |
| RPI 101-200 | 3 | 1 |
| RPI 200+ | 4 | 0 |
The most surprising result of the analysis might pertain to Sparty. The Spartans' expected 15-14 Division I record (omitting the victory over Chaminade) would hardly seem tournament caliber, but Michigan State joins only Kansas State and Virginia Tech as the only teams in this analysis to boast an overall record that is as good or better than the rest of the Mids.
Other than Duquesne's 16-14, there were three 14-16s (UAB, Butler and UTEP), a 13-17 (Colorado St.) and a 12-18 (Missouri State). Duquesne, Butler and UAB went 2-7 against Michigan St.'s Top 25 foes, but only 2-3 against the 26-50 teams, tying the Spartans at 4-10 versus the Top 50 overall. All six Mids went 7-1 against Michigan St.'s non-Top 100 opponents.
The Spartans and the Dukes are neck and neck, and Duquesne would probably get the nod for the extra Top 50 win, but it is very interesting to see how competitive Michigan St.'s 16-14 record is, when other more gaudy marks failed to hold up against the Mid Major sample.
CONCLUSIONS
This section will be revisited when the Middling Majors get their crack at the Mids' schedules tomorrow, but I'll leave you with a final S-Curve ladder for all 15 teams (six Mids, nine Middling Majors) based on the above analysis.
1. Duquesne
Showed up the Middling Majors almost across the board.
2. Kansas St.
No bad losses and those Top 100 games were difficult to manage for all of the Mids
3. Michigan St.
Records can be deceiving. 16-14 is enough to be a solid bubble team with that schedule, at least according to the Mids.
4. Marquette
The 3-11 mark against the RPI Top 25 isn't as horrible as expected and there are no bad losses here.
5. Virginia Tech
Would prefer a stronger showing against the top 50 and those two 101+ losses stick out, but the 7-1 RPI 51-100 record is impressive
6. UAB
In more of the discussions than the other second tier Mids behind Duquesne, the Blazers get the nod here.
7. Butler
Butler's relative high variance nature has produced enough odd results that it sneaks past Middling Majors that other Mids might not
8. Boston College
The two non-Top 100 RPI losses hurt and the resume isn't very meaty at the top.
9. UTEP
The last of the second tier Mids, UTEP gets the nod for ninth because it matches up well with the two Big 12 profiles right behind it.
10. Oklahoma St.
The 5-11 mark against the RPI Top 100 really hurts.
11. Baylor
Incredibly difficult to justify the Bears getting into the field over an Mid but Missouri State.
12. Colorado St.
In some of the discussions against the Middling Majors, but rarely racked up the quality wins with those schedules necessary to compete.
13. Alabama
Just can't go 5-4 against RPI 101-200 competition and expect an at-large.
14. Missouri State
Lagged behind all the other Mids in every analysis. Couldn't do much with any of the Middling Majors' schedules.
15. Georgia
The record looks nice, but it's probably more a function of a 15-0 mark against RPI 101+ competition than anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment